Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:United Users (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete unanimously. Xoloz 03:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

United Users
I'm nominating this for the second time: the first one can be found here. This organisation barely states anything, and has only one user really editing it User:Wikizach in the latter part of March 2006. Computerjoe 's talk 08:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's so little in the proposal that it wouldn't be worth keeping. Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another solution with no problem.  At least it went nowhere quietly.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 12:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Clearly does not have any good use. -- Andy123 candy?  15:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Nick C 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. E    Asterion  u talking to me? 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and it's really a body of one. Yanksox 20:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above.  Rockpock e  t  06:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems like a prototype of what Concordia and Esperanza already do. Kimchi.sg 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant with existing organizations. An army of one! Not worth preserving. Grand  master  ka  03:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.